Maharashtra REAT Releases Promoter's Pre-Deposit to Homebuyer After Late Appeal Fails

A homebuyer filed a complaint against his builder with MahaRERA on 3 March 2020. MahaRERA passed an order on his complaint on 4 December 2023. When the builder did not comply, he went back for non-compliance proceedings and got a further order on 8 April 2024. The builder's property was attached on 29 September 2025, and a sale was ordered on 1 April 2026. Only then did the builder file an appeal, 674 days late. In October 2026, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal refused to condone that delay and allowed the buyer to withdraw the money the builder had deposited to file the appeal.

The ruling, in Sachin Prakash Dhavle, Authorised Partner, M/s P.R. Builders & Developers v. MahaRERA & Ors., was reported by LiveLaw on 5 October 2026. This guide explains what the tribunal decided and what it tells a Mumbai buyer who has won a RERA order and is waiting to be paid. It is buyer guidance on a reported ruling, not legal advice for a specific case.

The short answer. The tribunal, headed by Chairperson S.S. Shinde, rejected the builder's request to condone a 674-day delay, held that the appeal did not survive, and directed that the builder's pre-deposit be released to the allottee. It reasoned that the pre-deposit protects an amount the authority has already decided in the buyer's favour, and that once the builder's appeal fails the buyer should not have to start a fresh recovery. The trade-off: the ruling helps buyers whose builders appeal and lose, but it does nothing where no appeal and no deposit exist, so a buyer still needs to pursue execution of the original order actively.

What did the Appellate Tribunal decide?

Two things. First, it refused to condone the delay. According to the LiveLaw report, the builder's appeal against the 8 April 2024 order was filed 674 days late, and the tribunal found the explanation insufficient. Second, it allowed the allottee's application to withdraw the pre-deposit, which the report says was made under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the RERA Act. The delay condonation application was rejected, the appeal was held not to survive, connected applications were disposed of, and the deposit was ordered released to the allottee.

The bench comprised Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande. The case is Misc. Application No. 693 of 2026 in Appeal No. AT05/00605 of 2026, reported as 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 75. According to the report, Advocate Raheel Malik appeared for the appellant and Advocate Nilesh Borate for the allottee. The appeal arose from the Adjudicating Officer's order of 8 April 2024, passed in the non-compliance proceedings the allottee had started after the original order. The report does not refer to any earlier decisions relied on by the tribunal, so this guide treats the ruling on its own terms.

How long did this buyer's case take?

More than six years from complaint to the tribunal's order. The table sets out the dates given in the LiveLaw report. The appeal was filed only after attachment and a sale order, which is the point the allottee stressed in opposing condonation.

Why did the tribunal refuse to condone the delay?

Because the tribunal found the reasons insufficient and unsupported by documents. The report says the builder pleaded that the firm did not receive summons and notices, that one of the main partners was outstation, that the illness and death of the partner's grandmother caused mental distress, and that there was an oversight in approaching counsel. The allottee opposed this, arguing that the promoter had been absent throughout and came to the tribunal only after attachment and sale proceedings had advanced, and that no medical records, death certificate or other supporting documents were produced.

The tribunal found the explanation insufficient, citing the lack of supporting material and the promoter's conduct. It held that condoning the delay at that stage would force the allottee into another round of litigation and make him go "from pillar to post" for recovery.

What is the pre-deposit, and why did it go to the buyer?

It is money the promoter deposited while appealing, and the tribunal treated it as the buyer's. The report says the tribunal held that the pre-deposit protects the amount the authority has already determined in the allottee's favour while the promoter appeals. The order, as reproduced in the report, says "it is imperative that once the appeal filed by the promoter is dismissed" and that "the amount deposited by the promoter which actually belongs to the allottee is required to be allowed to be withdrawn by the allottee."

For a buyer, the point is practical. Without release of the deposit, an allottee whose builder lost the appeal could still face a fresh effort to recover the same amount. The tribunal's direction avoids that. The report does not state the amount awarded, any interest component or the size of the deposit, so we do not give figures here.

What does this mean for a Mumbai buyer holding a RERA order?

That the paperwork after the order matters as much as the order. This buyer had to pursue non-compliance proceedings and recovery before the builder engaged at all. Our earlier guides explain what to do when a MahaRERA order is not complied with and how recovery warrants through the Collector work.

If your builder files an appeal against an order in your favour, find out whether a pre-deposit was made and keep track of the appeal's progress. If the appeal is dismissed, this ruling shows a tribunal allowing the allottee to withdraw the deposit rather than start again. Whether a similar application succeeds in your case depends on its facts, so take advice before you file one. For a related question about which forum hears flat disputes in Maharashtra, see our report on the Bombay High Court's larger bench reference on arbitration.

What should you do while a builder's appeal is pending?

Stay engaged with the appeal rather than waiting for it to end. The timeline in this case shows how long a matter can run: the complaint was filed in 2020, the order came in 2023, and recovery steps followed in 2025 and 2026. A buyer who stops tracking the case after the first order may miss the moment when an appeal is filed, a delay application is listed, or a deposit becomes available to claim.

In practice, that means keeping the case number of every proceeding, checking the cause list or the case status for the appeal, and responding to any delay condonation application with your own dated record. It also means keeping your lawyer informed of every step in recovery, because, as this case shows, the stage at which the builder chose to appeal became part of the tribunal's reasoning. None of this changes what you are owed under the order. It affects how quickly you can reach it.

Does this ruling help every buyer waiting for money?

No. It applies where a promoter has appealed, made a deposit, and lost. A buyer whose builder simply ignores an order, without appealing, does not have a deposit to draw on and has to rely on execution and recovery proceedings. And because the report describes one tribunal's order on one set of facts, it is best read as an illustration of how the tribunal approaches a failed appeal, not a guarantee of outcome in every case.

It also shows the value of opposing delay applications with specifics. The allottee here pointed to the promoter's absence throughout and the lack of documents, and the tribunal relied on both. A buyer who keeps a dated record of every notice and hearing is better placed to make that case.

A seven-point checklist after you win a RERA order

1. Keep a certified copy of the order and note every deadline it sets for the promoter.
2. Write to the promoter on the compliance deadline, and keep proof of delivery.
3. If the promoter does not comply, start non-compliance proceedings without waiting.
4. Track any recovery steps, including attachment and sale orders, with dates.
5. If the promoter appeals, find out whether a pre-deposit was made and for how much.
6. Oppose any delay condonation request with dates and the promoter's record of absence.
7. If the appeal fails, take advice on applying to withdraw the pre-deposit.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Maharashtra REAT decide in the P.R. Builders case?

According to LiveLaw, the tribunal rejected the promoter's application to condone a 674-day delay, held that the appeal did not survive, disposed of connected applications, and directed that the promoter's pre-deposit be released to the allottee instead of leaving him to start a fresh recovery.

Why was the delay not condoned?

The report says the promoter cited missed summons, a partner being outstation, a family bereavement and an oversight in instructing counsel. The tribunal found the explanation insufficient, citing the lack of supporting documents and the promoter's conduct, and said condoning delay would push the allottee into another round of litigation.

Why did the pre-deposit go to the homebuyer?

The tribunal held that the pre-deposit protects the amount already determined in the allottee's favour while the promoter appeals. As reproduced in the report, it said the amount deposited by the promoter actually belongs to the allottee and must be allowed to be withdrawn once the appeal is dismissed.

Does this help a buyer whose builder never appealed?

Not directly. The ruling concerns a promoter who appealed, made a deposit and lost. Where a builder ignores an order without appealing, there is no deposit to draw on, and the buyer has to pursue non-compliance, execution and recovery proceedings on the original order.

Last updated 2026-11-04. PropNewz Team.